Proceedings of the 1999 Winter Simulation Conference

P. A. Farrington, H. B. Nembhard, D. T. Sturrock, and G. W. Evans, eds.

VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION OF SIMULATION MODELS

Robert G. Sargent
Simulation Research Group
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
College of Engineering and Computer Science
Syracuse University
Syracuse, NY 13244, U.S.A.

A model should be developed for a specific purpose

(or application) and its validity determined with respect to
that purpose. If the purpose of a model is to answer a
variety of questions, the validity of the model needs to be
determined with respect to each question. Numerous sets of
experimental conditions are usually required to define the
domain of a models intended applicability. A model may
be valid for one set of experimental conditions and invalid in
another. A model is considered valid for a set of experimental
conditions if its accuracy is within its acceptable range,
which is the amount of accuracy required for the models
intended purpose. This usually requires that the models
output variables of interest (i.e., the model variables used in
answering the questions that the model is being developed
to answer) be identified and that their required amount of
accuracy be specified. The amount of accuracy required
should be specified prior to starting the development of the
model or very early in the model development process. If
the variables of interest are random variables, then properties
and functions of the random variables such as means and
variances are usually what is of primary interest and are what
is used in determining model validity. Several versions of a
model are usually developed prior to obtaining a satisfactory
valid model. The substantiation that a model is valid, i.e.,
model verification and validation, is generally considered to
be a process and is usually part of the model development
process.
It is often too costly and time consuming to determine
that a model is absolutely valid over the complete domain
of its intended applicability. Instead, tests and evaluations
are conducted until sufficient confidence is obtained that a
model can be considered valid for its intended application
(Sargent 1982, 1984 and Shannon 1975). The relationships
of cost (a similar relationship holds for the amount of
time) of performing model validation and the value of the
model to the user as a function of model confidence are
illustrated in Figure 1. The cost of model validation is

ABSTRACT
This paper discusses validation and verification of simulation
models. The different approaches to deciding model validity
are presented; how model validation and verification relate
to the model development process are discussed; various
validation techniques are defined; conceptual model validity,
model verification, operational validity, and data validity
are described; ways to document results are given; and a
recommended procedure is presented.
1

INTRODUCTION

Simulation models are increasingly being used in problem

solving and in decision making. The developers and users
of these models, the decision makers using information
derived from the results of the models, and people affected by
decisions based on such models are all rightly concerned with
whether a model and its results are correct. This concern is
addressed through model validation and verification. Model
validation is usually defined to mean substantiation that
a computerized model within its domain of applicability
possesses a satisfactory range of accuracy consistent with the
intended application of the model (Schlesinger et al. 1979)
and is the definition used here. Model verification is often
defined as ensuring that the computer program of the
computerized model and its implementation are correct,
and is the definition adopted here. A model sometimes
becomes accredited through model accreditation. Model
accreditation determines if a model satisfies a specified
model accreditation criteria according to a specified process.
A related topic is model credibility. Model credibility
is concerned with developing the confidence needed by
(potential) users in a model and in the information derived
from the model that they are willing to use the model and
the derived information.
This paper is a modified version of Sargent (1998).

39

Sargent
Value
Cost
Cost

0%

Model Confidence

developed, this author believes that usually a third party

should evaluate only the verification and validation that has
already been performed.
The last approach for determining whether a model is
valid is to use a scoring model (see, e.g., Balci 1989, Gass
1993, and Gass and Joel 1987). Scores (or weights) are
determined subjectively when conducting various aspects
of the validation process and then combined to determine
category scores and an overall score for the simulation
model. A simulation model is considered valid if its overall
and category scores are greater than some passing score(s).
This approach is infrequently used in practice.
This author does not believe in the use of a scoring model
for determining validity because (1) the subjectiveness of
this approach tends to be hidden and thus appears to be
objective, (2) the passing scores must be decided in some
(usually subjective) way, (3) a model may receive a passing
score and yet have a defect that needs correction, and (4)
the score(s) may cause overconfidence in a model or be
used to argue that one model is better than another.
We now discuss how model validation and verification
relate to the model development process. There are two
common ways to view this relationship. One way uses
some type of detailed model development process, and the
other uses some type of simple model development process.
Banks, Gerstein, and Searles (1988) reviewed work using
both of these ways and concluded that the simple way more
clearly illuminates model validation and verification. This
author recommends the use of a simple way (see, e.g.,
Sargent 1981 and Sargent 1982), which is presented next.
Consider the simplified version of the modeling process in Figure 2. The problem entity is the system (real
or proposed), idea, situation, policy, or phenomena to be
modeled; the conceptual model is the mathematical/logical/verbal representation (mimic) of the problem entity developed for a particular study; and the computerized model
is the conceptual model implemented on a computer. The
conceptual model is developed through an analysis and modeling phase, the computerized model is developed through
a computer programming and implementation phase, and
inferences about the problem entity are obtained by conducting computer experiments on the computerized model
in the experimentation phase.
We now relate model validation and verification to this
simplified version of the modeling process (see Figure 2).
Conceptual model validity is defined as determining that the
theories and assumptions underlying the conceptual model
are correct and that the model representation of the problem
entity is reasonable for the intended purpose of the model.
Computerized model verification is defined as ensuring that
the computer programming and implementation of the conceptual model is correct. Operational validity is defined
as determining that the models output behavior has sufficient accuracy for the models intended purpose over the

Value
of
Model
to
User
100%

Figure 1: Model Confidence

usually quite significant, particularly when extremely high
model confidence is required.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows:
Section 2 discusses the basic approaches used in deciding model validity; Section 3 defines validation techniques;
Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 contain descriptions of data validity,
conceptual model validity, model verification, and operational validity, respectively; Section 8 describes ways of
presenting results; Section 9 gives a recommended validation procedure; and Section 10 contains the summary.
2

VALIDATION PROCESS

Three basic approaches are used in deciding whether a

simulation model is valid or invalid. Each of the approaches
requires the model development team to conduct validation
and verification as part of the model development process,
which is discussed below. The most common approach is
for the development team to make the decision as to whether
the model is valid. This is a subjective decision based on
the results of the various tests and evaluations conducted
as part of the model development process.
Another approach, often called independent verification and validation (IV&V), uses a third (independent)
party to decide whether the model is valid. The third party
is independent of both the model development team and
the model sponsor/user(s). After the model is developed,
the third party conducts an evaluation to determine its validity. Based upon this validation, the third party makes
a subjective decision on the validity of the model. This
approach is usually used when a large cost is associated
with the problem the simulation model is being used for
and/or to help in model credibility. (A third party is also
usually used for model accreditation.)
The evaluation performed in the IV&V approach
ranges from simply reviewing the verification and validation
conducted by the model development team to a complete
verification and validation effort. Wood (1986) describes
experiences over this range of evaluation by a third party
on energy models. One conclusion that Wood makes is
that a complete IV&V evaluation is extremely costly and
time consuming for what is obtained. This authors view
is that if a third party is used, it should be during the
model development process. If the model has already been

40

Validation and Verification of Simulation Models

known results of analytic models, and (2) the simulation
model may be compared to other simulation models that
have been validated.
Degenerate Tests: The degeneracy of the models behavior is tested by appropriate selection of values of the
input and internal parameters. For example, does the average number in the queue of a single server continue to
increase with respect to time when the arrival rate is larger
than the service rate?
Event Validity: The events of occurrences of the
simulation model are compared to those of the real system
to determine if they are similar. An example of events is
deaths in a fire department simulation.
Extreme Condition Tests: The model structure and
output should be plausible for any extreme and unlikely
combination of levels of factors in the system; e.g., if inprocess inventories are zero, production output should be
zero.
Face Validity: Face validity is asking people knowledgeable about the system whether the model and/or its
behavior are reasonable. This technique can be used in
determining if the logic in the conceptual model is correct
and if a models input-output relationships are reasonable.
Fixed Values: Fixed values (e.g., constants) are used for
various model input and internal variables and parameters.
This should allow the checking of model results against
easily calculated values.
Historical Data Validation: If historical data exist (or
if data are collected on a system for building or testing the
model), part of the data is used to build the model and
the remaining data are used to determine (test) whether the
model behaves as the system does. (This testing is conducted
by driving the simulation model with either samples from
distributions or traces (Balci and Sargent 1982a, 1982b,
1984b).)
Historical Methods: The three historical methods of
validation are rationalism, empiricism, and positive economics. Rationalism assumes that everyone knows whether
the underlying assumptions of a model are true. Logic
deductions are used from these assumptions to develop the
correct (valid) model. Empiricism requires every assumption and outcome to be empirically validated. Positive
economics requires only that the model be able to predict
the future and is not concerned with a models assumptions
or structure (causal relationships or mechanism).
Internal Validity: Several replications (runs) of a stochastic model are made to determine the amount of (internal)
stochastic variability in the model. A high amount of
variability (lack of consistency) may cause the models
results to be questionable and, if typical of the problem
entity, may question the appropriateness of the policy or
system being investigated.
Multistage Validation: Naylor and Finger (1967) proposed combining the three historical methods of rationalism,

Problem
Entity

Conceptual
Model
Validity
Analysis
and
Modeling

Operational
Validity
Experimentation
Data
Validity

Computerized
Model

Computer Programming
and Implementation

Conceptual
Model

Computerized
Model
Verification

Figure 2: Simplified Version of the Modeling Process

domain of the models intended applicability. Data validity
is defined as ensuring that the data necessary for model
building, model evaluation and testing, and conducting the
model experiments to solve the problem are adequate and
correct.
Several versions of a model are usually developed in
the modeling process prior to obtaining a satisfactory valid
model. During each model iteration, model validation and
verification are performed (Sargent 1984). A variety of
(validation) techniques are used, which are described below.
No algorithm or procedure exists to select which techniques
to use. Some attributes that affect which techniques to use
are discussed in Sargent (1984).
3

VALIDATION TECHNIQUES

This section describes various validation techniques (and

tests) used in model validation and verification. Most of
the techniques described here are found in the literature, although some may be described slightly differently. They can
be used either subjectively or objectively. By objectively,
we mean using some type of statistical test or mathematical
procedure, e.g., hypothesis tests and confidence intervals.
A combination of techniques is generally used. These techniques are used for validating and verifying the submodels
and overall model.
Animation: The models operational behavior is displayed graphically as the model moves through time. For
example, the movements of parts through a factory during
a simulation are shown graphically.
Comparison to Other Models: Various results (e.g.,
outputs) of the simulation model being validated are compared to results of other (valid) models. For example, (1)
simple cases of a simulation model may be compared to

41

Sargent
empiricism, and positive economics into a multistage process of validation. This validation method consists of (1)
developing the models assumptions on theory, observations,
general knowledge, and function, (2) validating the models
assumptions where possible by empirically testing them,
and (3) comparing (testing) the input-output relationships
of the model to the real system.
Operational Graphics: Values of various performance
measures, e.g., number in queue and percentage of servers
busy, are shown graphically as the model moves through
time; i.e., the dynamic behaviors of performance indicators
are visually displayed as the simulation model moves through
time.
Parameter VariabilitySensitivity Analysis: This technique consists of changing the values of the input and
internal parameters of a model to determine the effect upon
the models behavior and its output. The same relationships
should occur in the model as in the real system. Those
parameters that are sensitive, i.e., cause significant changes
in the models behavior or output, should be made sufficiently accurate prior to using the model. (This may require
iterations in model development.)
Predictive Validation: The model is used to predict
(forecast) the system behavior, and then comparisons are
made between the systems behavior and the models forecast
to determine if they are the same. The system data may come
from an operational system or from experiments performed
on the system. e.g., field tests.
Traces: The behavior of different types of specific
entities in the model are traced (followed) through the
model to determine if the models logic is correct and if
the necessary accuracy is obtained.
Turing Tests: People who are knowledgeable about
the operations of a system are asked if they can discriminate between system and model outputs. (Schruben (1980)
contains statistical tests for use with Turing tests.)
4

In addition, behavioral data is needed on the problem entity

to be used in the operational validity step of comparing
the problem entitys behavior with the models behavior.
(Usually, these data are system input/output data.) If these
data are not available, high model confidence usually cannot
be obtained, because sufficient operational validity cannot
be achieved.
The concern with data is that appropriate, accurate,
and sufficient data are available, and if any data transformations are made, such as disaggregation, they are correctly
performed. Unfortunately, there is not much that can be
done to ensure that the data are correct. The best that can
be done is to develop good procedures for collecting and
maintaining it, test the collected data using techniques such
as internal consistency checks, and screen for outliers and
determine if they are correct. If the amount of data is large,
a data base should be developed and maintained.
5

CONCEPTUAL MODEL VALIDATION

Conceptual model validity is determining that (1) the theories and assumptions underlying the conceptual model are
correct, and (2) the model representation of the problem
entity and the models structure, logic, and mathematical
and causal relationships are reasonable for the intended
purpose of the model. The theories and assumptions underlying the model should be tested using mathematical analysis
and statistical methods on problem entity data. Examples
of theories and assumptions are linearity, independence,
stationary, and Poisson arrivals. Examples of applicable
statistical methods are fitting distributions to data, estimating parameter values from the data, and plotting the data
to determine if they are stationary. In addition, all theories used should be reviewed to ensure they were applied
correctly; for example, if a Markov chain is used, does the
system have the Markov property, and are the states and
transition probabilities correct?
Next, each submodel and the overall model must be
evaluated to determine if they are reasonable and correct
for the intended purpose of the model. This should include
determining if the appropriate detail and aggregate relationships have been used for the models intended purpose,
and if the appropriate structure, logic, and mathematical and
causal relationships have been used. The primary validation
techniques used for these evaluations are face validation and
traces. Face validation has experts on the problem entity
evaluate the conceptual model to determine if it is correct and
reasonable for its purpose. This usually requires examining
the flowchart or graphical model, or the set of model equations. The use of traces is the tracking of entities through
each submodel and the overall model to determine if the
logic is correct and if the necessary accuracy is maintained.
If errors are found in the conceptual model, it must be
revised and conceptual model validation performed again.

DATA VALIDITY

Even though data validity is often not considered to be

part of model validation, we discuss it because it is usually
difficult, time consuming, and costly to obtain sufficient,
accurate, and appropriate data, and is frequently the reason
that attempts to validate a model fail. Data are needed
for three purposes: for building the conceptual model, for
validating the model, and for performing experiments with
the validated model. In model validation we are concerned
only with the first two types of data.
To build a conceptual model we must have sufficient
data on the problem entity to develop theories that can
be used to build the model, to develop the mathematical
and logical relationships in the model that will allow it to
adequately represent the problem identity for its intended
purpose, and to test the models underlying assumptions.

42

Validation and Verification of Simulation Models

6

errors may be caused by the data, the conceptual model,

the computer program, or the computer implementation.
For a more detailed discussion on model verification,
see Whitner and Balci (1989).

MODEL VERIFICATION

Computerized model verification ensures that the computer

programming and implementation of the conceptual model
are correct. The major factor effecting verification is whether
a simulation language or a higher level programming language such as FORTRAN, C, or C++ is used. The use of
a special-purpose simulation language generally will result
in having fewer errors than if a general-purpose simulation
language is used, and using a general purpose simulation
language will generally result in having fewer errors than if
a general purpose higher level language is used. (The use of
a simulation language also usually reduces the programming
time required and the flexibility.)
When a simulation language is used, verification is
primarily concerned with ensuring that an error free simulation language has been used, the simulation language has
been properly implemented on the computer, that a tested
(for correctness) pseudo random number generator has been
properly implemented, and that the model has been programmed correctly in the simulation language. The primary
techniques used to determine that the model has been programmed correctly are structured walk-throughs and traces.
If a higher level language has been used, then the
computer program should have been designed, developed,
and implemented using techniques found in software engineering. (These include such techniques as object-oriented
design, structured programming, and program modularity.)
In this case verification is primarily concerned with determining that the simulation functions (such as the time-flow
mechanism, pseudo random number generator, and random variate generators) and the computer model have been
programmed and implemented correctly.
There are two basic approaches for testing simulation software: static testing and dynamic testing (Fairley
1976). In static testing the computer program is analyzed
to determine if it is correct by using such techniques as
structured walk-throughs, correctness proofs, and examining the structure properties of the program. In dynamic
testing the computer program is executed under different
conditions and the values obtained (including those generated during the execution) are used to determine if the
computer program and its implementations are correct. The
techniques commonly used in dynamic testing are traces,
investigations of input-output relations using different validation techniques, internal consistency checks, and reprogramming critical components to determine if the same
results are obtained. If there are a large number of variables, one might aggregate some of the variables to reduce
the number of tests needed or use certain types of design
of experiments (Kleijnen 1987).
It is necessary to be aware while checking the correctness of the computer program and its implementation that

OPERATIONAL VALIDITY

Operational validity is concerned with determining that the

models output behavior has the accuracy required for the
models intended purpose over the domain of its intended
applicability. This is where most of the validation testing
and evaluation takes place. The computerized model is used
in operational validity, and thus any deficiencies found may
be due to an inadequate conceptual model, an improperly
programmed or implemented conceptual model (e.g., due
to programming errors or insufficient numerical accuracy),
or due to invalid data.
All of the validation techniques discussed in Section 3
are applicable to operational validity. Which techniques and
whether to use them objectively or subjectively must be decided by the model development team and other interested
parties. The major attribute affecting operational validity
is whether the problem entity (or system) is observable,
where observable means it is possible to collect data on
the operational behavior of the program entity. Table 1
gives a classification of the validation approaches for operational validity. Comparison means comparing/testing
the model and system input-out behaviors, and explore
model behavior means to examine the output behavior
of the model using appropriate validation techniques and
usually includes parameter variability-sensitivity analysis.
Various sets of experimental conditions from the domain of
the models intended applicability should be used for both
comparison and exploring model behavior.
To obtain a high degree of confidence in a model and
its results, comparisons of the models and systems inputoutput behaviors for several different sets of experimental
conditions are usually required. There are three basic comparison approaches used: (1) graphs of the model and system
behavior data, (2) confidence intervals, and (3) hypothesis
Table 1: Operational Validity Classification
OBSERVABLE
SYSTEM

NON-OBSERVABLE
SYSTEM

SUBJECTIVE COMPARISON USING

EXPLORE
APPROACH
GRAPHICAL DISPLAYS
MODEL BEHAVIOR
EXPLORE MODEL
COMPARISON TO
BEHAVIOR
OTHER MODELS

OBJECTIVE
APPROACH

43

COMPARISON
USING
STATISTICAL
TESTS AND
PROCEDURES

COMPARISON
TO OTHER
MODELS USING
STATISTICAL
TESTS AND
PROCEDURES

Sargent
tests. Graphs are the most commonly used approach, and
confidence intervals are next.
7.1 Graphical Comparison of Data
The behavior data of the model and the system are graphed
for various sets of experimental conditions to determine
if the models output behavior has sufficient accuracy for
its intended purpose. Three types of graphs are used:
histograms, box (and whisker) plots, and behavior graphs
using scatter plots. (See Sargent (1996a) for a thorough
discussion on the use of these for model validation.) An
example of a box plot is given in Figure 3, and examples
of behavior graphs are shown in Figures 4 and 5. A variety
of graphs using different types of (1) measures such as the
mean, variance, maximum, distribution, and time series of
a variable, and (2) relationships between two measures of a
single variable (see Figure 4) and between measures of two
variables (see Figure 5) are required. It is important that
appropriate measures and relationships be used in validating
a model and that they be determined with respect to the
models intended purpose. See Anderson and Sargent (1974)
for an example of a set of graphs used in the validation of
a simulation model.
These graphs can be used in model validation in different
ways. First, the model development team can use the graphs
in the model development process to make a subjective
judgment on whether a model possesses sufficient accuracy
for its intended purpose. Second, they can be used in the face
validity technique where experts are asked to make subjective
judgments on whether a model possesses sufficient accuracy
for its intended purpose. Third, the graphs can be used is
in Turing tests. Another way they can be used is in IV&V.

Figure 4: Reaction Time

7.2 Confidence Intervals

Confidence intervals (c.i.), simultaneous confidence intervals (s.c.i.), and joint confidence regions (j.c.r.) can be
obtained for the differences between the means, variances,
and distributions of different model and system output variables for each set of experimental conditions. These c.i.,
s.c.i., and j.c.r. can be used as the model range of accuracy
for model validation.
120

System

Model

100
80

Figure 5: Disk Access

60

To construct the model range of accuracy, a statistical

procedure containing a statistical technique and a method
of data collection must be developed for each set of experimental conditions and for each variable of interest. The

40

Figure 3: Box Plot

44

Validation and Verification of Simulation Models

I, , is called model builders risk, and the probability of
the type II error, , is called model users risk (Balci and
Sargent 1981). In model validation, the model users risk
is extremely important and must be kept small. Thus both
type I and type II errors must be carefully considered when
using hypothesis testing for model validation.
The amount of agreement between a model and a system
can be measured by a validity measure, , which is chosen
such that the model accuracy or the amount of agreement
between the model and the system decreases as the value
of the validity measure increases. The acceptable range of
accuracy can be used to determine an acceptable validity
range, 0 .
The probability of acceptance of a model being valid,
Pa , can be examined as a function of the validity measure by
using an Operating Characteristic Curve (Johnson 1994).
Figure 6 contains three different operating characteristic
curves to illustrate how the sample size of observations
affect Pa as a function of . As can be seen, an inaccurate
model has a high probability of being accepted if a small
sample size of observations is used, and an accurate model
has a low probability of being accepted if a large sample
size of observations is used.

statistical techniques used can be divided into two groups:

(1) univariate statistical techniques, and (2) multivariate statistical techniques. The univariate techniques can be used
to develop c.i., and with the use of the Bonferroni inequality
(Law and Kelton 1991), s.c.i. The multivariate techniques
can be used to develop s.c.i. and j.c.r. Both parametric and
nonparametric techniques can be used.
The method of data collection must satisfy the underlying assumptions of the statistical technique being used. The
standard statistical techniques and data collection methods
used in simulation output analysis (Banks, Carson, and Nelson 1996, Law and Kelton 1991) can be used for developing
the model range of accuracy, e.g., the methods of replication
and (nonoverlapping) batch means.
It is usually desirable to construct the model range of
accuracy with the lengths of the c.i. and s.c.i. and the sizes
of the j.c.r. as small as possible. The shorter the lengths or
the smaller the sizes, the more useful and meaningful the
model range of accuracy will usually be. The lengths and
the sizes (1) are affected by the values of confidence levels,
variances of the model and system output variables, and
sample sizes, and (2) can be made smaller by decreasing the
confidence levels or increasing the sample sizes. A tradeoff
needs to be made among the sample sizes, confidence levels,
and estimates of the length or sizes of the model range of
accuracy, i.e., c.i., s.c.i., or j.c.r. Tradeoff curves can be
constructed to aid in the tradeoff analysis.
Details on the use of c.i., s.c.i., and j.c.r. for operational
validity, including a general methodology, are contained in
Balci and Sargent (1984b). A brief discussion on the use
of c.i. for model validation is also contained in Law and
Kelton (1991).
7.3 Hypothesis Tests
Hypothesis tests can be used in the comparison of means,
variances, distributions, and time series of the output variables of a model and a system for each set of experimental
conditions to determine if the models output behavior has
an acceptable range of accuracy. An acceptable range of
accuracy is the amount of accuracy that is required of a
model to be valid for its intended purpose.
The first step in hypothesis testing is to state the hypotheses to be tested:

Figure 6: Operating Characteristic Curves

The location and shape of the operating characteristic
curves are a function of the statistical technique being used,
the value of chosen for = 0, i.e., , and the sample size
of observations. Once the operating characteristic curves
are constructed, the intervals for the model users risk ()
and the model builders risk can be determined for a given
as follows:

H0 : Model is valid for the acceptable range of accuracy

under the set of experimental conditions.
H1 : Model is invalid for the acceptable range of accuracy
under the set of experimental conditions.

model builders risk (1 )

0 model users risk () .

Two types of errors are possible in testing hypotheses.

The first, or type I error, is rejecting the validity of a valid
model and the second, or type II error, is accepting the
validity of an invalid model. The probability of a type error

Thus there is a direct relationship among the builders risk,

model users risk, acceptable validity range, and the sample

45

Sargent
9

size of observations. A tradeoff among these must be made

in using hypothesis tests in model validation.
Details of the methodology for using hypothesis tests in
comparing the models and systems output data for model
validations are given in Balci and Sargent (1981). Examples
of the application of this methodology in the testing of output
means for model validation are given in Balci and Sargent
(1982a, 1982b, 1983). Also, see Banks et al. (1996).
8

RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE

This author recommends that, as a minimum, the following

steps be performed in model validation:
1.

DOCUMENTATION

Documentation on model verification and validation is usually critical in convincing users of the correctness of a
model and its results, and should be included in the simulation model documentation. (For a general discussion on
documentation of computer-based models, see Gass (1984).)
Both detailed and summary documentation are desired. The
detailed documentation should include specifics on the tests,
evaluations made, data, results, etc. The summary documentation should contain a separate evaluation table for data
validity, conceptual model validity, computer model verification, operational validity, and an overall summary. See
Table 2 for an example of an evaluation table of conceptual
model validity. (See Sargent (1994, 1996b) for examples
of two of the other evaluation tables.) The columns of the
table are self-explanatory except for the last column, which
refers to the confidence the evaluators have in the results
or conclusions, and this is often expressed as low, medium,
or high.

2.

3.
4.
5.

6.

7.
8.

Have an agreement made prior to developing

the model between (a) the model development
team and (b) the model sponsors and (if possible) the users, specifying the basic validation
approach and a minimum set of specific validation techniques to be used in the validation
process.
Specify the amount of accuracy required of
the models output variables of interest for the
models intended application prior to starting
the development of the model or very early in
the model development process.
Test, wherever possible, the assumptions and
theories underlying the model.
In each model iteration, perform at least face
validity on the conceptual model.
In each model iteration, at least explore the
models behavior using the computerized
model.
In at least the last model iteration, make comparisons, if possible, between the model and
system behavior (output) data for several sets
of experimental conditions.
Develop validation documentation for inclusion in the simulation model documentation.
If the model is to be used over a period of
time, develop a schedule for periodic review
of the models validity.

Table 2: Evaluation Table for Conceptual Model Validity

Category/Item
Theories
Assumptions
Model
representation

Technique(s)
Used
Face validity
Historical
Accepted
approach
Derived from
empirical data
Theoretical
derivation

Justification for
Technique Used

Reference to
Supporting Report

Result/
Conclusion

Confidence
In Result

Strengths
Weaknesses
Overall evaluation for
Computer Model Verification

Overall
Conclusion

Justification for
Conclusion

46

Confidence
In Conclusion

Validation and Verification of Simulation Models

Balci, O. and R. G. Sargent. 1984b. Validation of Simulation Models via Simultaneous Confidence Intervals,
American Journal of Mathematical and Management
Science, 4, 3, pp. 375406.
Banks, J., J. S. Carson II, and B. L. Nelson. 1996. DiscreteEvent System Simulation, 2nd Ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Banks, J., D. Gerstein, and S. P. Searles. 1988. Modeling Processes, Validation, and Verification of Complex
Simulations: A Survey, Methodology and Validation,
Simulation Series, Vol. 19, No. 1, The Society for
Computer Simulation, pp. 1318.
DOD Simulations: Improved Assessment Procedures Would
Increase the Credibility of Results. 1987. U. S. General
Accounting Office, PEMD-88-3.
Fairley, R. E. 1976. Dynamic Testing of Simulation Software, Proc. of the 1976 Summer Computer Simulation
Conf., Washington, D.C., pp. 4046.
Gass, S. I. 1983. Decision-Aiding Models: Validation,
Assessment, and Related Issues for Policy Analysis,
Operations Research, 31, 4, pp. 601663.
Gass, S. I. 1984. Documenting a Computer-Based Model,
Interfaces, 14, 3, pp. 8493.
Gass, S. I. 1993. Model Accreditation: A Rationale and
Process for Determining a Numerical Rating, European
Journal of Operational Research, 66, 2, pp. 250258.
Gass, S. I. and L. Joel. 1987. Concepts of Model Confidence, Computers and Operations Research, 8, 4,
pp. 341346.
Gass, S. I. and B. W. Thompson. 1980. Guidelines for
Model Evaluation: An Abridged Version of the U.S.
General Accounting Office Exposure Draft, Operations
Research, 28, 2, pp. 431479.
Johnson, R. A. 1994. Miller and Freunds Probability
and Statistics for Engineers, 5th Ed., Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Kleijnen, J. P. C. 1987. Statistical Tools for Simulation
Practitioners, Marcel Dekker, New York.
Kleindorfer, G. B. and R. Ganeshan. 1993. The Philosophy
of Science and Validation in Simulation, Proc. of 1993
Winter Simulation Conf., 5057.
Knepell, P. L. and D. C. Arangno. 1993. Simulation
Validation: A Confidence Assessment Methodology,
IEEE Computer Society Press.
Law, A. M. and W. D. Kelton. 1991. Simulation Modeling
and Analysis, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill.
Naylor, T. H. and J. M. Finger. 1967. Verification of
Computer Simulation Models, Management Science,
14, 2, pp. B92B101.
Oren, T. 1981. Concepts and Criteria to Assess Acceptability
of Simulation Studies: A Frame of Reference, Comm.
of the ACM, 24, 4, pp. 180189.
Rao, M. J. and R. G. Sargent. 1988. An advisory System
for Operational Validity, Artificial Intelligence and Sim-

Models occasionally are developed to be used more

than once. A procedure for reviewing the validity of these
models over their life cycles needs to be developed, as
specified by step 8. No general procedure can be given, as
each situation is different. For example, if no data were
available on the system when a model was initially developed
and validated, then revalidation of the model should take
place prior to each usage of the model if new data or system
understanding has occurred since its last validation.
10 SUMMARY
Model validation and verification are critical in the development of a simulation model. Unfortunately, there is no
set of specific tests that can easily be applied to determine
the correctness of the model. Furthermore, no algorithm
exists to determine what techniques or procedures to use.
Every new simulation project presents a new and unique
challenge.
There is considerable literature on verification and validation. Articles given in the limited bibliography can
be used as a starting point for furthering your knowledge on model verification and validation. For a fairly
recent bibliography, see the following UHL on the WWW:
http://manta.cs.vt.edu/biblio/.
LIMITED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, H. A. and R. G. Sargent. 1974. An Investigation
into Scheduling for an Interactive Computer System,
IBM Journal of Research and Development, 18, 2,
pp. 125137.
Balci, O. 1989. How to Assess the Acceptability and
Credibility of Simulation Results, Proc. of the 1989
Winter Simulation Conf., pp. 6271.
Balci, O. 1995. Principles and Techniques of Simulation
Validation, Verification, and Testing, Proc. of the 1995
Winter Simulation Conf., pp. 147154.
Balci, O. and R. G. Sargent. 1981. A Methodology for CostRisk Analysis in the Statistical Validation of Simulation
Models, Comm. of the ACM, 24, 4, pp. 190197.
Balci, O. and R. G. Sargent. 1982a. Validation of Multivariate Response Simulation Models by Using Hotellings
Two-Sample T 2 Test, Simulation, 39, 6, pp. 185192.
Balci, O. and R. G. Sargent. 1982b. Some Examples of
Simulation Model Validation Using Hypothesis Testing,
Proc. of the 1982 Winter Simulation Conf., pp. 620629.
Balci, O. and R. G. Sargent. 1983. Validation of Multivariate Response Trace-Driven Simulation Models,
Performance 83, ed. Agrawada and Tripathi, North
Holland, pp. 309323.
Balci, O. and R. G. Sargent. 1984a. A Bibliography on
the Credibility Assessment and Validation of Simulation
and Mathematical Models, Simuletter, 15, 3, pp. 1527.

47

Sargent
ulation: The Diversity of Applications, ed. T. Hensen,
Society for Computer Simulation, San Diego, CA, pp.
2452250.
Sargent, R. G. 1979. Validation of Simulation Models,
Proc. of the 1979 Winter Simulation Conf., San Diego,
CA, pp. 497503.
Sargent, R. G. 1981. An Assessment Procedure and a Set
of Criteria for Use in the Evaluation of Computerized
Models and Computer-Based Modelling Tools, Final
Technical Report RADC-TR-80-409.
Sargent, R. G. 1982. Verification and Validation of Simulation Models, Chapter IX in Progress in Modelling and
Simulation, ed. F. E. Cellier, Academic Press, London,
pp. 159169.
Sargent, R. G. 1984. Simulation Model Validation, Simulation and Model-Based Methodologies: An Integrative
View, ed. Oren, et al., Springer-Verlag.
Sargent, R. G. 1985. An Expository on Verification and
Validation of Simulation Models, Proc. of the 1985
Winter Simulation Conf., pp. 15-22.
Sargent, R. G. 1986. The Use of Graphic Models in Model
Validation, Proc. of the 1986 Winter Simulation Conf.,
Washington, D.C., pp. 237241.
Sargent, R. G. 1988. A Tutorial on Validation and Verification of Simulation Models, Proc. of 1988 Winter
Simulation Conf., pp. 3339.
Sargent, R. G. 1990. Validation of Mathematical Models, Proc. of Geoval-90: Symposium on Validation of
Geosphere Flow and Transport Models, Stockholm,
Sweden, pp. 571579.
Sargent, R. G. 1991. Simulation Model Verification and Validation, Proc. of 1991 Winter Simulation Conf., Phoenix,
AZ, pp. 3747.
Sargent, R. G. 1994. Verification and Validation of Simulation Models, Proc. of 1994 Winter Simulation Conf.,
Lake Buena Vista, FL, pp. 7787.
Sargent, R. G. 1996a. Some Subjective Validation Methods
Using Graphical Displays of Data, Proc. of 1996 Winter
Simulation Conf., pp. 345351.
Sargent, R. G. 1996b. Verifying and Validating Simulation
Models, Proc. of 1996 Winter Simulation Conf., pp.
5564.
Sargent, R. G. 1998. Verification and Validation of Simulation Models, Proc. of 1998 Winter Simulation Conf.,
pp. 121130.
Schlesinger, et al. 1979. Terminology for Model Credibility,
Simulation, 32, 3 pp. 103104.
Schruben, L. W. 1980. Establishing the Credibility of
Simulations, Simulation, 34, 3, pp. 101105.
Shannon, R. E. 1975. Systems Simulation: The Art and the
Science, Prentice-Hall.
Whitner, R. B. and O. Balci. 1989. Guidelines for Selecting
and Using Simulation Model Verification Techniques,

Proc. of 1989 Winter Simulation Conf., Washington,

D.C., pp. 559568.
Wood, D. O. 1986. MIT Model Analysis Program: What
We Have Learned About Policy Model Review, Proc.
of the 1986 Winter Simulation Conf., Washington, D.C.,
pp. 248252.
Zeigler, B. P. 1976. Theory of Modelling and Simulation,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
ROBERT G. SARGENT is a Research Professor/Emeritus
Professor at Syracuse University. He received his education at the University of Michigan. Dr. Sargent has served
his profession in numerous ways and has been awarded
the TIMS (now INFORMS) College on Simulation Distinguished Service Award for longstanding exceptional service
to the simulation community. His research interests include
the methodology areas of both modeling and discrete event
simulation, model validation, and performance evaluation.
Professor Sargent is listed in Whos Who in America.

48